I am so confused...

[Hellenism Salesman]

So, for context, I was playing a Small Continents game as Persia on Prince. The only two civs I'd met were America and Rome. I had befriended Teddy (before I declared a surprise war on Rome) and was currently in the process of killing Rome. The moment I wiped out Rome's last city, the standard defeat cutscene played ("The wellbeing of the defeated is to not hope for much more wellbeing..."), and then this:

Um... Teddy...



My guess as to what happened here:

Teddy's agenda is satisfied when you're currently at peace with everyone on the continent. Since it was only me, Teddy, Rome, and some city-states, upon killing Rome I automatically "made peace" with them, and likewise with the city-state they had been suzerain of. So, Teddy's AI- having noticed that I was at peace with every power on the continent- utterly ignored that fact I just killed another civilization and applauded me for my peacefulness.

...

What makes things more confusing is that he wasn't mad at me when I declared the surprise war against Rome- he chose to ignore that, too. I didn't check to see if he'd even met Rome yet (which is the only explanation I could think of as to why he wouldn't be upset), but I still find that very confusing.

Anyone have a clue what happened here or why Teddy acted the way he did?

 

[pokiehl]

Agendas aren’t good. I hope we get a return to the AI flavor system of Civ 5 in the next game.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm assuming he never met Rome yet, but either way you technically did make peace with both Rome and their city-state allies, therefore fulfilling his agenda.

 

[Tech Osen]

Nothing that complicated: Teddy is happy when you are not at war on his continent. Doesn't make much sense in cases like this one but that's how it works.

 

[Uberfrog]

To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire; they make a solitude and call it peace.

I guess Teddy thinks there’s no use crying over split milk. You are technically at peace...

(see also the Paces Britannica, Mongolica, and, er... Romana... )

 

[Jeppetto]

Can't be at war on your continent with other civs, If there's no other civs on your continent. Teddy playing 4D chess.

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

this agenda system is truly awful

 

[Basajaun]

Yep. Like Alexander and Gorgo wetting their pants while you are on a conquest. Then after eliminating the last city, they get pissed because you are at peace

 

[EgonSpengler]

Actually, that kind of makes sense for Teddy. Keeping the peace by knocking the [stuffing] out of somebody was talking his language. He was the one who actually put the Monroe Doctrine into practice and greatly expanded the US Navy*, and I believe he wanted the US to jump into WWI with both feet. But I don't know if the game's "personalities" are that nuanced, so I suppose the point still stands.


* Ah, yes. "The Great White Fleet."

Its mission was to make friendly courtesy visits to numerous countries

If by "friendly courtesy visits" you mean, "Hey, Great Britain [and Russia and the Netherlands and France and Japan]: Mess with the bull and you'll get the horns. Ask Spain. Have a nice day!"

 

[PiR]

the standard defeat cutscene played ("The wellbeing of the defeated is to not hope for much more wellbeing...")

What is this scene?

 

[Lord Lakely]

CI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM -- theodore roosevelt.

 

[enKage]

Agendas aren’t good. I hope we get a return to the AI flavor system of Civ 5 in the next game.

Firaxis please save us from anything from civ5, especially diplomacy of civ5, all those flavors system and being hated forever by taking a single city in a defensive war

Diplo meta -->civ4. when you must use the right tools to please AI, meaning following the same religion, making trades, being at war with the same enemy, having the same friends, using certain civics. If you have a lot in common - you are friends. If many things divide you - you are enemies - it is so simple and so obvious.

Agendas are not the best solution because of variety of civs, not because that is a bad concept in general. Civ5 way of making friends - meaning settling 4 cities and pressing end of turn forever - is the worst possible option.

 

[AntSou]

Diplo meta -->civ4. when you must use the right tools to please AI, meaning following the same religion, making trades, being at war with the same enemy, having the same friends, using certain civics. If you have a lot in common - you are friends. If many things divide you - you are enemies - it is so simple and so obvious.

All of those things are in Civ 6. Agendas are an additional variable, they don't replace the things you mentioned.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

What is this scene?

Trajan/Rome's defeat cutscene (I had just captured their last city). I call them cutscenes, anyway- sorry if that wording was confusing.

 

[PiR]

All of those things are in Civ 6. Agendas are an additional variable, they don't replace the things you mentioned.

Religion is?
As for being at war with the same enemy, I never really felt it to be a big push in 6.
I don't hate the agendas but sometimes they seem like something minor, compared to real common/divergent interests we have with a civ.

Trajan/Rome's defeat cutscene (I had just captured their last city). I call them cutscenes, anyway- sorry if that wording was confusing.

Fiouh, thanks, I thought I missed a DLC adding cinematics or something. Wouldn't be a fanatics anymore.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

Fiouh, thanks, I thought I missed a DLC adding cinematics or something. Wouldn't be a fanatics anymore.

Oh, no problem. I can't blame you for misunderstanding, it was fairly strange wording...

 

[AntSou]

Religion is?
As for being at war with the same enemy, I never really felt it to be a big push in 6.
I don't hate the agendas but sometimes they seem like something minor, compared to real common/divergent interests we have with a civ.

Indirectly, through failing promises not to convert their cities, or converting Holy Cities. But I agree the system could be improved.

However, I'll argue in favour of Agendas. They're a pretty creative addition to the game which suffers from perhaps not being entirely thought through in terms of the unintended or weird consequences they may at times cause. I'd rather agendas were reworked rather than removed.

Consider the changes introduced with Lady Trieu. The problem we see in the OP's example is an apparently automatic decay once the last city is conquered and he's once again at "peace". The solution would be for the penalty to either not decay or decay at a very slow rate, as is the case with Lady Trieu.